Sunday, September 20, 2015

Vitek Tracz is a hero of the open access
movement, and it is not hard to see why. Fifteen years ago he founded the
world’s first for-profit OA publisher BioMed Central (BMC), and pioneered pay-to-publish gold OA. Instead of charging readers a downstream
subscription fee, BMC levies an upfront article-processing charge, or APC. By doing so it is able to cover its costs at the
time of publication, and so make the papers it publishes freely available on
the Internet.[See the comment below the Q&A for clarification of this].

Many said Tracz’s
approach would not work. But despite initial scepticism BMC eventually
convinced other publishers that it had a sustainable business model, and so
encouraged them to put their toes in the OA waters too. As such, OA advocates
believe BMC was vital to the success of open access. As Peter Murray-Rustput it in 2010, “Without Vitek and BMC we would not have
open access”.

Today
Tracz has a new, more radical, mission, which he is pursuing with F1000.

Vitek Tracz

As always, I
have written an introduction to the Q&A below with Vitek Tracz; as
sometimes happens, the introduction turned out to be longer than readers might
expect, or wish to read.

I have,
therefore, put the introduction into a PDF file, which can be accessed by clicking
on this link.

Those interested
only in the Q&A need simply read on below.

The Q&A begins ….

RP: As I
understand it, F1000 now consists of three main services — F1000Research,
F1000Prime, and F1000Workspace. In addition, I believe there is something
called F1000 Specialists. Can you say something briefly about each of these
services, and when they were launched?

VT:The newly launched F1000(F1000.com) is an
integrated site combining three services: F1000Prime, F1000Research and F1000Workspace.
These services are built and supported through the active collaboration and
participation of the largest high-level group of experts (over 11,000 and
growing) from across biology and medicine, the F1000 Faculty. This consists of
experienced leaders (Faculty Members) and talented young researchers (Associate
Faculty Members, appointed by Faculty Members), in about equal numbers.

We
started what is now called F1000Prime 13 years ago, which has become the
largest and most comprehensive article-level quality assessment of biomedical
literature: the F1000 Faculty identify those articles
they find interesting in their daily work, rate them at one of the three levels
of quality (all positive, the goal is to find the best articles) and write a
short text explaining why the chosen article is interesting to them.

F1000Research,
launched over 2 years ago, is an open science publishing platform that offers a
completely new way of publishing research in biology and medicine: it uses
immediate publication followed by transparent peer review, requires the
underlying data to be shared, and encourages the publication of all research
findings. It also now offers a platform to freely share scientific posters and
slides.

Recently,
we launched F1000Workspace, a comprehensive set of tools to help researchers
write articles and grants, discover literature, manage references and reference
libraries, and collaborate and prepare for publication.

The
F1000 Specialists are not an external service; they are a growing group of
young active supporters of our services who work with us in key institutions to
support new users of our services and bring feedback that then contributes to
future development decisions.

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention
7 years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was bombarding
researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the editorial boards
of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.

Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with each
interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g. that the publisher
is levying article-processing charges but not actually sending papers out for review,
that it is publishing junk science, that it is claiming to be a member of a publishing
organisation when in reality it is not a member, that it is deliberately choosing
journal titles that are the same, or very similar, to those of prestigious
journals (or even directly cloning titles) in order to fool researchers into
submitting papers to it etc. etc.

As the allegations became more serious I found myself repeatedly
telling OA advocates that unless something was done to address the situation the
movement would be confronted with a serious problem. But far too little has
been done, and so the number of predatory publishers has continued to grow, and
the cries of alarm are becoming more widespread.

Initially, the OA movement responded by saying that it was not a real problem
because most so-called predatory journals had few if any papers in them, so there
could be very few researchers affected.

Nevertheless, the number of publishers listed by Jeffrey Beall as “potential,
possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers” has grown year
by year. Since 2011 Beall’s list has increased from
just 18 publishers to 693. One has to ask: why would there have been a 3,750%
increase in this number if only a handful of people ever use the journals?

When it became harder to sweep the problem aside, OA advocates shifted ground,
and began to argue that while there may be an issue it was only a problem for
researchers in the developing world.

But is that response not simply another way of trying to suggest that there
isn’t really a problem? Either way, why would the problem be any less important
if the only victims were researchers based in the developing world?

In any case, I do not believe it to be an accurate characterisation. When
a recent ABC Background
Briefing examined the activities of one suspect publisher’s operations in
Australia it concluded that there was a real problem down under. And Australia can
hardly be described as a developing country.

Call me a sceptic

My own personal experience likewise suggests that the problem is somewhat
more widespread and worrying than is generally acknowledged. I am regularly
contacted by researchers who have fallen foul of dubious OA publishers. Yes,
some of these researchers are based in the developing world, but a good number
are based in the developed world, and some are even based in prestigious North
American universities.

So call me a sceptic over claims that predatory publishing is not a serious issue, or that
it is only impacting on those based in the developing world.

I’d also have to say that when I contact universities where those
who have asked me for help are based, or big publishers whose journal titles have
been used as bait to gull researchers into submitting to a predatory journal, I
don’t get the feeling that there is much willingness to help the victims, to tackle
the problem, or even to confront it.

For their part, OA advocates often also resort to arguing that subscription
publishers are also predatory, so why does not Beall include them in his list
as well? While this may be true, it is not particularly helpful, or relevant, in
the context of seeking a solution to the problem of predatory OA journals.

So we are left with a growing problem but little effort being put into
resolving it.

What we do have is a white list run by the Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ), and a blacklist run by a single
individual (Jeffrey Beall).

One problem with the white list approach is that it can too easily become
an exclusive club (excluding, say, journals based in the developing world). Moreover,
the management of DOAJ has not been trouble free. Last year, for instance, it had
to remove
over 650 journals from its database after it decided it needed to tighten
up its selection criteria and ask publishers to re-apply for inclusion.
This was necessary because it had become clear that predatory journals were
finding their way into the database. But as predatory
journal buster John Bohannon has pointed
out, the real problem is that DOAJ doesn’t have sufficient resources to be very effective. DOAJ is, he says, “fighting an uphill battle to identify all of literature’s
‘fake journals’.”

As a lone individual, the challenge for Beall is that much greater. It
is no surprise therefore that he and his blacklist are frequently (and often bitterly)
criticised for including publishers without sufficient evidence that they are indeed
predatory. In any case, add OA advocates, Beall is “anti-OA”, and so his list should
be completely ignored. Of course, it is always much easier to criticise someone
who is trying to solve a problem than to do something about it yourself.

So what is the solution? Personally, I think the problem needs to be
approached from a different direction.

What is surely relevant here is that in order to practise their trade predatory
publishers depend on the co-operation of researchers, not least because they
have to persuade a sufficient number to sit on their editorial boards in order to
have any credibility. Without an editorial board a journal will struggle to
attract many submissions.

This suggests that if a journal is predatory then all those researchers
sitting on its editorial and advisory boards are to some extent also predatory,
or at least they are conspiring in the publisher’s predatory behaviour. After
all, if members of the editorial board of a journal that was engaging in predatory
activity wanted to end or curtail that activity they could join together and resign,
or threaten to resign.

Yes, I know some researchers have their names listed on journal
editorial boards without their permission, or perhaps even knowledge. But the
majority do so because it looks good on their CV. And in accepting an
invitation to be associated with a journal most ask far too few questions about
the publisher, and do far too little research into its activities, before saying
yes. ABC found over
200 Australian researchers sitting on the editorial boards of just one predatory
publisher. I am confident that most if not all of these agreed to sit on the
boards.

So my question is this: Do these researchers not have some
responsibility for any predatory behaviour the publisher engages in?
Personally, I think the answer is yes!

What to do?

So what to do? Here I have a modest proposal. I don’t know whether it
is practical or feasible, but I make the proposal anyway, if only to try and
get people to think more seriously about solutions rather than excuses.

Why does the OA movement not create a database containing all the names
of researchers who sit on the editorial and/or advisory boards of the publishers
on Beall’s list, along with the names of the journals with which they are
associated? Such a database could perhaps serve a number of purposes:

·It could be used as a way of cross checking the appropriateness
of a publisher/journal being listed on Beall’s site. It would at least surely focus minds,
and hopefully encourage editorial boards to demonstrate (if they can) that
their publisher/journal has been inappropriately placed on Beall’s list, or do something
about it, if only by resigning. To help trigger this process researchers listed
in the database could be contacted and told that their name was in it.

·The database could help those thinking of
submitting to a journal listed in it to more easily find and contact members of its
editorial board, and before submitting ask them to personally vouch for the
quality of the review process. If things then went wrong the submitting researcher
could take the issue up with those board members s/he had contacted. There is
nothing quite like personal recommendation, and the personal responsibility
that accompanies it.

·Researchers could also search on the database
before agreeing to sit on an editorial board as part of a due diligence
process. If the publisher/journal is listed in the database they could contact board
members and ask them to personally vouch for the quality of the journal.

·Researchers could search the database for their
own names in order to establish whether they have been listed on an editorial
board without their permission or knowledge.

·Such a database could also quickly reveal how
many journals on Beall’s list a particular researcher was associated with.

·If editorial board members’ institutions were
included in the database regular Top 10 lists could be published showing the
institutions that had the greatest number of board members of journals in Beall’s
list. Would that not also focus minds?

·And if countries were included Top 10 lists of
those could be published too.

I am sure people would also come up with other uses for such a database.

As I say, I don’t know how practical my proposal is, or whether anyone would
be willing to take it on — but it is worth noting that ABC has already produced
a list of board members of the journals of one publisher (although without
the name of the relevant journal attached). This suggests that it is feasible. In
fact, creating such a database would be a great candidate for a crowdsourcing
project.

Above all, such an initiative would make an important point: responsibility
for predatory behaviour needs to be pushed back to the research community.

As Cameron Neylon points
out, we need to move beyond the point of seeing researchers as “hapless
victims”. They are active agents in
scholarly communication, and when the publishing practices of journals with
which they are associated turn out to be inadequate or deceptive researchers ought
to take responsibility, not just point the finger at rogue publishers.

In any case, it is surely past time for the research community to step
up and grasp this nettle.

On a more general note, creating public databases of researchers on the
editorial and advisory boards of journals (both those considered predatory and
those not considered so) would make the point that agreeing to be associated
with a journal comes with responsibilities, that it is not just a way of
padding a CV.